ftaIf there's a more sure-fire way to troll conservatives on their biggest obsession, we probably haven't heard it yet.

Keeping wingnut heads on fire for another 2 1/2 years won't be easy, but this is certainly worth a try. I imagine that when it's time to vote for Hillary, only a few ears will perk up to this dog whistle.

I don't know what Subby's on about. But it sounds like Clift is just trying to dispel the idea that we left the front door open with no security and the attackers marched right in and shot Stevens point blank in his head.

Sure, she's stirring the pot a bit. But what she's saying is that the situation was not that simple. And she doesn't want this oversimplification get in the way of sorting out the mess that happened. Since the Republicans don't seem interested in the full details and just want pin it all on Obama or use it against Hillary if she runs.

But what I really want to know is if McLaughlin looked at her and just said: "WRONG! Pat...?"

Um, no she didn't. if anything, her mental gymnastics to avoid calling it a murder or assassination just perpetuates the aura that there was a concerted effort of cover up at work here. the way she describes it, Stevens died in an accidental fire.

SlothB77:Um, no she didn't. if anything, her mental gymnastics to avoid calling it a murder or assassination just perpetuates the aura that there was a concerted effort of cover up at work here. the way she describes it, Stevens died in an accidental fire.

An extreme and simplified contrast to highlight the other side's extreme and simplified characterization, as I said.

This is no more than differentiating a cause of death from the cause of the accident. You don't list "train" as the cause of death if you're hit by a train. Similarly, you wouldn't list "terrorism."

Diogenes:SlothB77: Um, no she didn't. if anything, her mental gymnastics to avoid calling it a murder or assassination just perpetuates the aura that there was a concerted effort of cover up at work here. the way she describes it, Stevens died in an accidental fire.

An extreme and simplified contrast to highlight the other side's extreme and simplified characterization, as I said.

This is no more than differentiating a cause of death from the cause of the accident. You don't list "train" as the cause of death if you're hit by a train. Similarly, you wouldn't list "terrorism."

Calling it an assassination is just cracked inspired bullshiat pulled out of someones ass. And, frankly, I think it's a legitimate argument (but pointless and meaningless) on using killed vs. died vs. murdered.

Would you consider, say, every combat death from insurgents in Iraq to be murdered?

I'm honestly beginning to believe they're holding onto this whole mess of stupid just so they can make their enemies point out that it happened a number of years ago and that people have moved on. Sort of a way of trying to make the Bush disaster of a presidency no longer relevant.

Satanic_Hamster:Calling it an assassination is just cracked inspired bullshiat pulled out of someones ass. And, frankly, I think it's a legitimate argument (but pointless and meaningless) on using killed vs. died vs. murdered.

Would you consider, say, every combat death from insurgents in Iraq to be murdered?

Well, I'd have to watch the whole piece to be certain. But it makes me wonder if that isn't exactly what Clift was getting at. The arbitrariness of the terminology used to "explain" what happened. Because most of the people who are on tilt over it seem to be fixated on whether or not the administration characterized it as an act of "terrorism" or not.

Call it whatever the fark you want. It was a tinderbox and security and support were inadequate. But there's shared accountability there. And it's clear the GOP doesn't want to own their piece of the failure.

Diogenes:I don't know what Subby's on about. But it sounds like Clift is just trying to dispel the idea that we left the front door open with no security and the attackers marched right in and shot Stevens point blank in his head.

Sure, she's stirring the pot a bit. But what she's saying is that the situation was not that simple. And she doesn't want this oversimplification get in the way of sorting out the mess that happened. Since the Republicans don't seem interested in the full details and just want pin it all on Obama or use it against Hillary if she runs.

But what I really want to know is if McLaughlin looked at her and just said: "WRONG! Pat...?"

So he wasn't "first-degree murdered", or even really "second-degree murdered". More like "manslaughtered", if you squint just right - an "arsonist who sets fire to an 'empty' building killing a homeless guy" sort of thing.

born_yesterday:1. Republicans proposed and then voted to slash funding for security.

But you see, this actually makes it Obama's fault, because if he thought extra embassy security was necessary he should have ignored the Congressionally mandated budget and diverted funds to embassy security.

Diogenes:Well, I'd have to watch the whole piece to be certain. But it makes me wonder if that isn't exactly what Clift was getting at. The arbitrariness of the terminology used to "explain" what happened. Because most of the people who are on tilt over it seem to be fixated on whether or not the administration characterized it as an act of "terrorism" or not.

Call it whatever the fark you want. It was a tinderbox and security and support were inadequate. But there's shared accountability there. And it's clear the GOP doesn't want to own their piece of the failure.

Dr Dreidel:So he wasn't "first-degree murdered", or even really "second-degree murdered". More like "manslaughtered", if you squint just right - an "arsonist who sets fire to an 'empty' building killing a homeless guy" sort of thing.

Or, as most sane people might colloquially term it: "murder".

But, again, where do you draw the line between what would be considered combat deaths and criminal murder? We've largely been treating fighting with terrorists and insurgents to be a military matter. Usually you don't call deaths from a military attack murder.

Calling it an assassination is just cracked inspired bullshiat pulled out of someones ass. And, frankly, I think it's a legitimate argument (but pointless and meaningless) on using killed vs. died vs. murdered.

Pointless and meaningless to you at least. However, to millions of less infromed people, the right vernacular and semantics paints a very different world view. The phrase "murdered by terrorists" is much more lurid and scary than "died of smoke inhalation while hiding in a safe room." It's done intentionally to shape the argument and it should be revealed for the manipulation it shows.

qorkfiend:born_yesterday: 1. Republicans proposed and then voted to slash funding for security.

But you see, this actually makes it Obama's fault, because if he thought extra embassy security was necessary he should have ignored the Congressionally mandated budget and diverted funds to embassy security.

SlothB77:Um, no she didn't. if anything, her mental gymnastics to avoid calling it a murder or assassination just perpetuates the aura that there was a concerted effort of cover up at work here. the way she describes it, Stevens died in an accidental fire.

I remember Free Republic's insistence that Stevens was pulled from the rubble by a horde of angry Muslims, beheaded, and then sexually mutilated in the street.

Satanic_Hamster:Diogenes: Well, I'd have to watch the whole piece to be certain. But it makes me wonder if that isn't exactly what Clift was getting at. The arbitrariness of the terminology used to "explain" what happened. Because most of the people who are on tilt over it seem to be fixated on whether or not the administration characterized it as an act of "terrorism" or not.

Call it whatever the fark you want. It was a tinderbox and security and support were inadequate. But there's shared accountability there. And it's clear the GOP doesn't want to own their piece of the failure.

Dr Dreidel: So he wasn't "first-degree murdered", or even really "second-degree murdered". More like "manslaughtered", if you squint just right - an "arsonist who sets fire to an 'empty' building killing a homeless guy" sort of thing.

Or, as most sane people might colloquially term it: "murder".

But, again, where do you draw the line between what would be considered combat deaths and criminal murder? We've largely been treating fighting with terrorists and insurgents to be a military matter. Usually you don't call deaths from a military attack murder.

FlashHarry:SlothB77: the way she describes it, Stevens died in an accidental fire.

no, she doesn't.

I think what she's getting at, is that Chris Stevens was not specifically targeted by the attackers. He was not the primary reason they were there, nor was his death the end-goal of the attackers. What she's saying is that the embassy was the target, and any Americans, or those who were in their employ were the targets, and the death of Chris Stevens was the result of an attack meant only to kill any random person and destroy an American installation.

MFAWG:qorkfiend: born_yesterday: 1. Republicans proposed and then voted to slash funding for security.

But you see, this actually makes it Obama's fault, because if he thought extra embassy security was necessary he should have ignored the Congressionally mandated budget and diverted funds to embassy security.

Something, something, electric cars, something, something, CHECKMATE

Precisely! These revelations will surely force the empty-suit iron-fisted Obama regime to slowly coast to a halt. Because the batteries in their electric car went dead, you see.

This isn't a "theory." People die of smoke inhalation all the time. I'm guessing she means that it was a byproduct of the attacks rather than a specific assassination attempt. I don't know how anyone could know that unless they are privy to the operational strategies of the attackers. But usually when Qaedans like Ansar al Sharia attack a CIA base, they are probably trying to destroy it and kill everyone inside. That is sort of the point. So I think its dumb to try to make an argument Ambassador Stevens wasn't "murdered." Every victim of a terrorist attack is in the larger sense, murdered. Even if it wasn't an assassination attempt.

Satanic_Hamster:Dr Dreidel: So he wasn't "first-degree murdered", or even really "second-degree murdered". More like "manslaughtered", if you squint just right - an "arsonist who sets fire to an 'empty' building killing a homeless guy" sort of thing.

Or, as most sane people might colloquially term it: "murder".

But, again, where do you draw the line between what would be considered combat deaths and criminal murder? We've largely been treating fighting with terrorists and insurgents to be a military matter. Usually you don't call deaths from a military attack murder.

You don't generally hear battlefield deaths (think the trench warfare of old) termed "murder", but what Noted War Criminal Allen West did to a detainee was attempted (or simulated) murder. When a US soldier massacres people in a village, we call it "murder". "Green on Blue" attacks are murders. But when a roadside bomb goes off, it's "terrorism"?

It's murder of a different type - death due to intentionally-inflicted injury. Whether by terrorism, officially declared war, musical knife fight, sentence carried out by decision of a free and open court, or robbery gone wrong, it's still "murder" colloquially speaking.

// maybe they didn't intend to kill Stevens specifically, maybe they didn't even intend to kill at all (HIGHLY unlikely) - but they definitely intended to do damage, and at the least didn't care if someone got killed, which makes it intentional enough to call "murder"

Almet:I think what she's getting at, is that Chris Stevens was not specifically targeted by the attackers. He was not the primary reason they were there, nor was his death the end-goal of the attackers. What she's saying is that the embassy was the target, and any Americans, or those who were in their employ were the targets, and the death of Chris Stevens was the result of an attack meant only to kill any random person and destroy an American installation.

This is a distinction without a difference. Like the supposed difference between "act of terror" and "terrorist act," there is no rational reason to harp on a meaningless distinction. A difference that makes no difference is not a difference. Furthermore, there is nothing in the State Department report that makes a claim to know the operational strategies of the attackers.

Almet:I think what she's getting at, is that Chris Stevens was not specifically targeted by the attackers. He was not the primary reason they were there, nor was his death the end-goal of the attackers. What she's saying is that the embassy was the target, and any Americans, or those who were in their employ were the targets, and the death of Chris Stevens was the result of an attack meant only to kill any random person and destroy an American installation.

Dr Dreidel:// maybe they didn't intend to kill Stevens specifically, maybe they didn't even intend to kill at all (HIGHLY unlikely) - but they definitely intended to do damage, and at the least didn't care if someone got killed, which makes it intentional enough to call "murder"

I'd more put it at a "drive-by" style of mentality. They don't care if someone is killed, but the main plan was just to shoot the shiat out of the place. If you seen any of the footage, there's a lot of just spamming rounds in the air, at walls, etc etc.

Somacandra:To be fair, according to page 19 of the State Dept. report (PDF), there were just four guard positions assigned for the CIA base and only three were actually staffed that night.

Most claims seem to be that 50-250 insurgents attacked, including with heavy weapons. I'd say the guards did a pretty damn good job.

Somacandra:Diogenes: But it sounds like Clift is just trying to dispel the idea that we left the front door open with no security...

To be fair, according to page 19 of the State Dept. report (PDF), there were just four guard positions assigned for the CIA base and only three were actually staffed that night.

That is fair. And I doubt it would have made a difference.

Alot went wrong there. I wish more people were interested in the full details so we could actually learn from it and prevent it in the future instead of trying to score points or sweep it under the rug.

Zeppelininthesky:When will the brave GOP start looking for the actual attackers instead of trying to blame Obama and Clinton? If they *actually* cared about the dead Americans, they would make finding them a priority.

Zeppelininthesky:When will the brave GOP start looking for the actual attackers instead of trying to blame Obama and Clinton? If they *actually* cared about the dead Americans, they would make finding them a priority.

The GOP's in charge of finding them? I guess that explains why they haven't been found yet.